>.l 


342.73083 
R243a 


NOTICE:  Return  or  renew  all  Library  Materialsl  The  Minimum  Fee  for 
each  Lost  Book  is  $50.00. 

The  person  charging  this  material  is  responsible  for 
its  return  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  withdrawn 
on  or  before  the  Latest  Date  stamped  below. 

Theft,  mutilation,  and  underlining  of  books  are  reasons  for  discipli- 
nary action  and  may  result  in  dismissal  from  the  University. 
To  renew  call  Telephone  Center,  333-8400 

UNIVERSITY    OF    ILLINOIS    LIBRARY    AT    URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 


JUL  2  6 


MAY  12 


2005 


L161— O-1096 


UNIVERSITY  Of 

ILUNOIS  LI3RARV 

^  URB^NA-CHAr^?A:2M 


AMERICAN  DEPORTATION 
AND  EXCLUSION  LAWS 

A  Report  Submitted  by  Charles  Recht,  Counsel, 

to  the  N.  Y.  Bureau  of  Legal  Advice, 

January  IS,  1919 


James  Madison,  arguing  before  the  Virginia 
Assembly  in  behalf  of  a  resolution  condemning  tJie 
Alien  and  Sedition  Law  of  1798  said: 

"Could  a  power  be  given  in  terms  less  definite, 
less  particular,  and  less  precise?  To  be  dangerous 
to  public  safety,  to  be  suspected  of  secret  machina- 
tions against  the  government,  these  can  never  be 

mistaken  for  legal  rules  or  certain  definitions 

It  is  rightly  afl&rmed,  therefore,  that  the  act  unites 
legislative  and  judicial  powers  to  those  of  the  ex- 
ecutive   that  this  union  of  power  subverts 

the  principle  of  free  government And  it 

must  be  wholly  immaterial  whether  unlimited 
powers  be  exercised  under  the  name  of  unlimited 
powers,  or  be  exercised  under  the  name  of  unlimited 
means  of  carrying  into  execution  limited  powers'* 


Reprinted  by 

NATIONAL  CIVIL  LIBERTIES  BUREAU 

41  Union  Square,  New  York  City 

till 


The  emergent  nature  of  the  matters  discussed  in  this 
pamphlet  is  made  abundantly  evident  by  the  widely 
heralded  deportation  of  54  aliens  from  the  Northwest, 
discussed  in  daily  papers  of  February  10th  and  1 1  th.  An 
effort  will  be  made  in  New  York  to  test  this  action  in  the 
courts  but  in  vieiv  of  the  state  of  the  law  and  the  decisions 
as  set  forth  in  this  memorandum,  its  success  is  very 
doubtful. 

February  IL  1919 


OUR  EXCLUSION  .\ND  DEPORTATION  LAWS 


To  the  Chairman  and  Members 

of  the  New  York  Bureau  of  Legal  Advice. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen: — 

Pursuant  to  a  resolution  passed  by  the  Executive  Committee, 
I  herewith  submit  to  you  a  report  on  our  Deportation  and  Ex- 
clusion Laws. 

You  of  course  realize  that  laws  are  the  mandates  of  a  rul- 
ing majority,  growing  out  of  economic  and  social  needs,  and 
that  the  interpretation  of  the  law  is  often  far  more  drastic  than 
its  intent.  On  the  other  hand  laws  are  often  placed  on  the 
statute  books  and  never  enforced.  We  are  dealing  here  however 
with  laws  which  both  in  their  substance  and  enforcement  are 
significant  because  they  are  loose  and  indefinite  in  their 
provisions  and  because  there  is  apparent  in  this  time  of  eco- 
nomic crisis  a  tendency  to  apply  them  to  ends  never  contem- 
plated by  their  framers.  The  suppression  of  "Anarchy"  has 
been  the  objective  of  these  laws,  and  Anarchy  itself  is  a  relative 
term.  In  Czarist  Russia  to  advocate  political  power  for  popular 
assembly  was  known  as  anarchy ;  in  Japan  to  advocate  universal 
suffrage  is  today  loosely  known  as  anarchy;  and  in  the  United 
States  to  advocate  organization  of  unskilled  labor  is  rapidly 
coming  to  mean  anarchy,  or,  to  use  the  popular  disparagement, 
"Bolshevism." 

Again  we  get  different  conceptions  of  what  constitutes 
anarchy  if  we  apply  the  criteria  of  individuals.     Mr.  Rocke- 

1 


feller,  may,  for  instance,  have  a  different  conception  of  anarchy 
from  Mr.  Wilson.  And  if  the  conception  among  leaders  dif- 
fers, what  field  for  divergence  must  necessarily  exist  among 
the  less  enlightened?  You  will  observe  that  by  the  terms  of 
the  law  itself  what  constitutes  anarchy  is  left  to  the  interpreta- 
tion of  Immigration  Inspectors.  These  Inspectors,  however  well 
intentioned  and  unprejudiced,  are  naturally  men  of  limited  edu- 
cation and  training — civil  service  officials,  on  salaries  ranging 
from  twelve  to  eighteen  hundred  dollars  per  year.  But  in  point 
of  fact  they  are  susceptible  to  both  prejudice  and  influence.  To 
some,  Mr.  Debs  will  appear  an  anarchist;  to  others  even  an 
official  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  should  he  chance 
to  fall  from  Government  grace,  might  come  within  the  category. 
I  want  besides  to  caution  you  that  we  are  dealing  with  a 
new  type  of  "anarchy"  and  that  we  are  departing  from  our  old 
meaning  of  that  term.  As  I  write  there  lies  before  me  the 
New  York  World  of  Januar}^  8,  1919.  On  the  first  page  is  a 
long  account  headed: 

MEET  "RED"  PERIL 
HERE  WITH  A  PLAN 
TO  DEPORT  ALIENS 


All  Bolshevists  in  America  Being  Listed  by 

Department   of   Labor  and   Justice, 

Which  See  Extent  of  Danger. 

The  extensive  article  further  continues: 

"These  were  the  outstanding  developments  yesterday  in  connec- 
tion with  the  growing  Bolshevik  menace  in  the  United  States: 

Announcement  was  made  in  Washington  that  there  is  a  definite 
plan  to  round  up  and  deport  all  the  alien  "Reds"  in  the  United  States 
and  that  the  Departments  of  Labor  and  Justice  are  co-operating  in  pre- 
paring a  list  of  every  person  in  the  country  who  has  been  drawn  into 
the  Bolshevik  movement."  .... 

All  this  is  highly  pertinent.     We  are  developing  through 


the  instrumentality  of  the  press  a  desire  to  rid  ourselves  of  dis- 
senters and  are  going  to  deport  them  by  virtue  of  the  Immi- 
gration Law. 

The  Immigration  Law 

An  excellent  review  of  the  history  of  laws  dealing  with 
deportation  of  aliens  is  to  be  found  in  an  able  brief  of  the 
relator's  attorneys  in  the  case  of  U.  S.  ex  rel  Turner  vs. 
Williams,^  decided  by  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  in  1904. 
The  case  is  remarkable  in  many  ways,  but  especially  because 
the  brief  was  written  by  the  lawyer-poet,  Edgar  Lee  Masters. 
It  is  no  mere  coincidence  in  the  history  of  our  country  that  the 
first  deportation  laws  were  written  into  the  Alien  and  Sedition 
Acts,^  for  whose  repeal  James  Madison  argued.  After  the  repeal 
of  the  Law  of  1798,  which  provided  mainly  for  the  naturaliza- 
tion of  aliens,  additional  measures  were  passed  in  1799,  1864, 
1875,  1882,  1885,  1887,  1891,  1893,  1903,  and  finally  1907, 
1912,  1917,  together  with  an  amendment  in  1918.  These  acts 
demonstrate  the  growing  restriction  of  immigration  commensu- 
rate with  the  economic  growth  of  the  country  and  our  protec- 
tionist policy. 

In  our  present  problem  we  are  mainly  concerned  with  the 
Act  of  1917  and  its  1918  amendment  insofar  as  they  touch  upon 
the  question  of  deportation.  The  sections  in  question.  Sections 
19,  20  and  28  of  the  Act  of  1917,  together  with  the  Amend- 
ment of  1918,  will  be  attached  to  this  report  as  Appendix  I. 

The  Act  of  1917  may  be  summarized  as  follows: 
Section  19.     Provides  for  deportation  of  any  alien  who 
was  within  the  excluded  class  when  he  entered  this  country,  or 


1.  U.  S.  ex  rel  Turner  vs.  Williams,  194  U.  S.  279. 

2.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  when  Jefferson  became  President,  he  ordered 
the  repayment  with  interest  of  all  fines  imposed  under  these  Acts. 


who  shall  be  found  to  advocate  the  following:  destruction  of 
property,  or  anarchy,  or  overthrow  of  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment or  of  its  forms  of  law,  or  assassination  of  public  officials; 
also  of  any  alien  who  was  sentenced  to  imprisonment  for  one 
year  or  more  for  a  crime  involving  moral  turpitude  committed 
within  five  years  of  his  arrival,  or  who  is  twice  sentenced  to  such 
term  at  any  time  after  his  entry,  unless  the  judge  sentencing 
him  does  not  ask  his  deportation;  also  of  any  alien  who  was 
convicted  or  who  admits  commission  prior  to  entry  of  a  crime 
involving  moral  turpitude. 

Section  20.  Provides  that  deportation  shall  be  to  the 
country  whence  the  alien  came,  and  if  such  country  refuses  his 
re-entry,  tlien  to  the  country  where  he  resided  prior  to  entering 
the  country  from  which  he  entered  the  United  States. 

Section  28.  Any  person  who  assists  an  alien  who  advo- 
cates anarchy,  etc.,  to  enter  the  U.  S.  shall  be  guilty  of  a  felony. 

The  amendment  of  October,  1918,  provides  that  anarchists 
or  aliens  who  advocate  the  overthrow  of  the  United  States  Gov- 
ernment or  of  all  forms  of  law;  or  who  disbelieve  in  all  organ- 
ized government,  or  who  advocate  unlawful  destruction  of  prop- 
erty; or  who  are  members  of  any  organization  that  entertains  a 
belief  in  the  overthrow  by  force  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  or  of  all  forms  of  law  or  of  an  opposition  to  all 
organized  government;  or  who  advocates  the  duty  or  necessity 
of  killing  any  officers  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
or  of  any  odier  organized  governm.ent,  shall  be  excluded.  Any 
alien  who  at  any  time  after  entry  shall  become  a  member  of 
one  of  the  excluded  classes  shall  be  deported  irrespective  of 
the  time  of  entry.  Attempting  to  return  after  deportation  is  a 
felony. 

In  this  discussion  Chinese  exclusion  cases  have  been 
omitted.     These  are  in  a  class  by  themselves,  as  this  country 

4 


has  always  reserved  the  right  to  exclude  certain  types  of  Asiatics 
by  treaty,  law,  and  precedent.  Those  sections  of  the  Immigra- 
tion Law  applicable  to  Asiatics  are  therefore  not  considered. 

Old  Interpretations 

Unfortmiately,  limitation  of  space  forbids  even  a  brief 
survey  of  the  increasing  strictness  of  the  Immigration  Law  and 
the  gro^vth  of  power  of  the  Immigration  authorities.  This  power 
was  not  suddenly  given  but  grew  from  enactment  to  enactment, 
from  precedent  to  precedent.  The  following  cases,  all  arising 
out  of  the  Act  before  the  amendments  of  1917  and  1918,  illus- 
trate the  unlimited  possibilities  of  interpretation: 

In  Redfern  vs.  Halpert/  an  alien  who  had  been  in  the 
country  since  childhood,  was  deported  on  the  ground  that  since 
her  arrival  she  had  become  immoral.     Commenting  upon  the 

rigor  of  the  law,  the  Court  said : 

"It  seems  to  me  that  no  greater  hardship  could  be  occassioned 
than  by  deporting  an  alien  who  had  come  to  this  country  at  a  tender  age 
and  lived  here  until  after  majority.  Deportation  in  such  case  is  tanta- 
mount to  exile."     (Italics  ours). 

In  a  case  similar  to  the  preceding,  viz..  United  States  ex 
rel  Bosny  vs.  Williams,^  Judge  Holt  tried  to  save  a  woman 
from  deportation  by  sustaining  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  that 
had  been  issued  in  her  behalf  on  the  ground  that  the  proceedings 
were  irregular.  It  is  a  fact,  however,  that  even  after  the  writ 
had  been  sustained,  the  woman  was  arrested  in  court  by  the 
authorities  and  subsequently  deported,  after  being  granted  the 
formalities  of  counsel.  Judge  Holt,  referring  to  the  practice  in 
deportation,  still  in  force,  states: 

"It  is  of  course  obvious  that  such  a  method  of  procedure  disre- 
gards almost  every  fundamental  principle  established  in  England  end 


1.  Redfern  vs.  Halpert,  186  Fed.  150. 

2.  U.  S.  ex  rel  Bosny  vs.  Williams,  185  Fed.  598. 


this  country  for  the  protection  of  persons  charged  with  an  offense. 
The  person  arrested  does  not  necessarily  know  who  instigated  the 
prosecution.  He  is  held  in  seclusion  and  is  not  permitted  to  consult 
counsel  until  he  has  been  finally  examined  under  oath.  The  whole 
proceeding  is  usually  substantially  in  control  of  one  of  the  inspectors, 
who  acts  in  it  as  informer,  arresting  officer,  inquisitor  and  judge.  The 
Secretary  who  issues  the  order  of  deportation  is  an  administrative  officer 
who  sits  hundreds  of  miles  away  and  never  sees  or  hears  the  person 
proceeded  against  or  the  witnesses.  Aliens  if  arrested  are  at  least 
entitled  to  the  rights  which  such  a  system  accords  them;  and  if  they 
are  deprived  of  any  such  right,  the  proceeding  is  clearly  irregular  and 
any  order  of  deportation  issued  in  it  invalid."     (Italics  ours). 

Canford  vs.  Williams.  Another  interesting  case  was  that 
of  Canford  vs.  Williams.^  The  relator  came  to  the  United 
States  in  1895  and  was  employed  as  an  art  engraver.  About 
1905  he  underwent  the  amputation  of  a  leg.  The  operation 
cost  about  $1500  and  left  him  penniless.  In  1910  he  went  to 
Italy  to  see  his  mother,  and,  attempting  to  land  in  the  United 
States  upon  his  return,  was  detained.  He  was  at  that  time  sixty 
years  of  age;  he  had  been  sixteen  years  in  this  country;  he  was 
willing  to  give  bond ;  and  his  children  some  of  whom  were  native 
bom,  offered  to  guarantee  his  maintenance.  Judge  Holt,  who 
passed  upon  this  case  also,  called  attention  to  the  alien's  mis- 
fortune and  his  age,  and  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  his  exclu- 
sion was  a  cruel  injustice,  but  stated  that  the  court  was  powerless 
to  interfere  so  long  as  the  proceedings  were  regular.  The  court 
added,  however,  that  it  hoped  the  Immigration  Department 
would  reconsider  its  decision  and  not  compel  the  alien  to  pass 
his  last  years  in  a  distant  land  away  from  his  wife  and  children 
and  exiled  from  the  coimtry  where  he  had  led  a  blameless  life. 


I.     U.  S.  ex  rel  Canford  vs.  Williams,  186  Fed.  354. 

6 


Recent  Cases 

When  we  realize  that  the  most  recent  amendment  to  the  law 
was  passed  as  late  as  three  months  ago  (October  1918),  we  can 
see  why  there  are  as  yet  no  reported  cases  in  the  Courts.  But 
cases  have  arisen,  the  number  of  which  can  only  be  got  from  the 
files  of  the  Immigration  Department.  Of  the  following  cited, 
two  were  cases  where  the  aliens  were  held  in  custody  more  than 
a  year  and  their  existence  accidentally  discovered  and  reported 
to  the  attorney.  That  there  must  be  other  such  cases  it  is  safe 
to  surmise. 

Joseph  Komes.  In  his  affidavit  for  a  writ  of  habeas 
corpus,  Joseph  Komes,  one  of  the  aliens,  says: 

"On  the  25th  day  of  January,  1918,  an  Immigration  Inspector 
came  to  the  County  Jail  where  he  was  asked  some  questions  by  the  said 
Immigration  Inspector.  That  during  the  entire  examination  the  said 
sheriff  stood  by,  standing  over  the  relator  in  such  a  threatening  manner, 
so  that  the  relator  was  in  constant  fear  of  further  assault  and  did  not 
feel  free  to  answer  questions  as  he  would  otherwise  have  answered 
them.  The  said  Inspector  asked  relator  if  he  did  not  say  that  the 
marshals  and  judges  should  be  shot,  to  which  he  replied  in  the  negative. 
The  relator  was  also  asked  whether  he  was  a  member  of  the  I.  W.  W. 
and  whether  they  would  give  him  a  lawyer.  Relator,  at  first,  fearing 
the  sheriff,  said  that  he  did  not,  but  later  stated  to  the  Immigration 
Inspector,  that  he  did  want  counsel.  The  Immigration  Inspector  there- 
upon stated  to  the  sheriff  in  the  presence  of  the  relator  that  opportunity 
must  be  given  relator  to  obtain  counsel. 

Shortly  after  said  examination,  the  said  sheriff  came  to  the  cell 
in  which  relator  was  imprisoned  and  told  him  to  pull  out  the  mattress. 
While  the  relator  was  doing  so,  the  sheriff  approached  the  relator  and 
struck  him  a  wild,  stinging  blow  upon  the  side  of  the  head,  saying  at 
the  same  time  "What  the  hell  do  you  want  a  lawyer  for !  I  will  kill  you 
before  you  get  out  of  here."  That  this  assault  and  statement  by  the 
said  sheriff  was  witnessed  by  a  prisoner  whose  first  name  is  Pete,  and 
who  is  under  charges  for  carrying  a  gun  without  a  license. 

The  Immigration  Inspector  came  a  second  time,  in  the  month  of 


February,  1918,  and  asked  some  further  questions.  At  that  time  relator 
was  asked  no  questions  with  respect  to  being  an  anarchist  or  believing 
in  anarchy."     (Italics  ours). 

The  Department  of  Immigration  made  a  return  to  the  writ, 
the  return  consisting  of  a  transcript  of  the  proceedings  which 
took  place  in  Hurley,  Wisconsin.  The  Immigration  Inspector, 
who  also  acted  as  inquisitor  and  judicial  officer,  made  the  find- 
ings and  reported  to  Washington.  It  should  be  noted  that  he 
acted  as  his  own  stenographer  and  had  ample  opportunity  to 
correct  any  irregularities  before  he  transcribed  them.  Never- 
theless, the  strongest  testimony  against  Komes  were  the 
statements  of  the  Sheriff  and  Chief  of  Police  of  Hurley, 
Wisconsin,  regarding  his  abuse  of  the  country  and  flag  and  his 
assertion  that  judges  and  officials  should  be  blown  up,  also  that 
his  friends  would  blow  up  the  jail  if  they  knew  of  his  plight. 
Komes  admits  intoxication  at  the  time  of  his  arrest  and  conse- 
quent confusion  as  to  what  occurred.  He  specifically  denies, 
however,  the  charge  of  violent  intent  toward  officials,  and  his 
testimony  on  his  beliefs  when  sober  is  as  follows: 

Q.     Do  you  believe  in  killing  officers? 
A.    No. 

Q.     Do  you  believe  the  President  of  the  United  States  should  be 

assassinated? 
A.     I  like  the  President  all  right, 
Q.     Do  you  believe  in  destroying  property? 
A.     No,  1  never  did  anything  like  that  in  my  life. 
Q.     So  when  you  said — if  you  did  say — that  you  "would  fight  the 

United  States  forever;  to  hell  with  the  United  States,"  you 

were  just  joking — you  didn't  mean  it? 
A.     No,  sir,  when  my  time  came  to  fight  I  will  fight  for  this 

country  and  the  French.     I  don't  believe  in  the  Kaiser. 

The  best  proof,  however,  of  the  weakness  of  the  case  is 
the   fact  that  when   it  came  up   for  argument   before   Judge 

8 


Learned  Hand,  the  Immigration  Department  agreed  to  cancel 
the  warrant  of  arrest  and  deportation.  On  January  10,  1919,  a 
cold  winter  day,  Komes  was  released  from  Ellis  Island,  clad  in 
scanty  summer  apparel,  without  a  vest  or  collar,  and  thus  after 
being  imprisoned  more  than  one  year  was  set  adrift  in  the  city 
of  New  York,  penniless  and  without  a  job. 

John  Meehan.  John  Meehan  was  arrested  in  Everett, 
Washington,  on  May  21,  1917,  for  a  violation  of  some  local 
anti-billboard  act.  It  was  found  that  he  was  a  member  of  the 
I.  W.  W.  and  he  was  ordered  deported  to  England,  from  which 
country  he  came  twenty-five  years  ago.  During  the  entire 
time  of  his  incarceration,  namely  from  May,  1917,  to  December, 
1918,  he  was  given  no  change  of  clothing  except  two  sets  of 
underwear,  a  blue  shirt  without  collar,  and  a  badly  worn  shirt 
and  pair  of  trousers.  He  had  no  money  and  had  to  borrow 
stamps  from  his  fellow-prisoners  to  write  to  his  friends.  In 
December  he  was  deported  to  England — hatless,  penniless,  and 
with  insufficient  clothing.  He  has  neither  kith  nor  kin  in  Eng- 
land, and  what  will  happen  to  him  upon  his  arrival  there  is 
easy  to  surmise,  especially  if  we  consider  the  economic  condi- 
tion of  the  country  during  this  period  of  reconstruction.  As 
Appendix  II  and  Ila,  to  this  report,  I  submit  copies  of  letters 
sent  by  Mr.  Meehan  to  Mr.  McKee,  the  Deportation  Officer  at 
Ellis  Island,  and  to  myself. 

Frank  R.  Lopez.  Another  instance  of  the  misapplica- 
tion of  the  Act  is  the  case  of  the  Spaniard,  Frank  R.  Lopez,  who 
was  arrested  in  Boston,  charged  with  "anarchy,"  ordered  de- 
ported and  is  now  at  Ellis  Island,  pending  an  appeal  in  his  case 
to  the  Circuit  Court  which  is  to  pass  on  the  question  of  law.  There 
is  no  claim  whatsoever  that  Lopez  is  a  violent  or  criminal  an- 
archist. He  described  himself  as  a  "philosophical  anarchist" 
and  it  is  admitted  that  he  is  a  member  of  the  American  Federa- 


tion  of  Labor;  that  he  owns  his  own  home  in  East  Dedham, 
Mass.;  that  he  is  married,  has  a  boy  ten  years  of  age,  has  been 
in  this  country  seventeen  years;  and  has  always  been  a  law- 
abiding  citizen.  The  following  quotations  at  page  3  from  the 
record  on  appeal  are  instructive: 

"Q.     What  are  their  ideas  (referring  to  anarchists)  ? 

A.     Education  of  children.    Libertarian  ideas. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  in  or  advocate  the  overthrow  by  violence  or 
force  the  Government  of  the  United  States? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Q.     Any  other  Government,  Spanish  or  Italian  or  Mexican? 

A.     No,  sir,  our  ideals  are  founded  on  education. 

Q.     What  are  your  ideals? 

A.     Free  thinking. 

Q.     Don't  you  believe  in  the  power  of  authority? 

A.     What  do  you  mean? 

Q.  Organized  government.  Don't  you  think  that  if  the  President 
gives  an  order  when  Congress  empowers  him  it  should  be 
obeyed? 

A.     Yes,  the  orders  should  be  obeyed. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  in  the  propriety  of  assassination  of  public 
officials  of  the  United  States  or  any  other  government? 

A.  No,  sir.  Not  only  officials  but  of  nobody.  Everybody  has  a 
right  to  live. 

Q.     Do  you  believe  in  anarchy? 

A.     What  do  you  mean  by  anarchy? 

Q.  Well,  it  would  be  anarchy  to  fight  against  the  laws  of  the 
United  States;  tear  down  buildings,  blow  them  up. 

A.  Anything  else?  I  believe  in  anarchy  but  it  is  not  in  the  way  you 
explain  it  or  the  way  the  newspapers  say  anarchy  is.  Anarchy 
the  way  the  newspapers  explain  it,  assassinating  women  and 
children,  dropping  bombs,  or  anything  like  that.  I  don't 
believe  in  that.  But  I  do  believe  in  teaching,  educating  and 
telling  the  people  how  to  better  their  conditions.  If  you  mean 
that  I  am  proud  of  being  an  anarchist.  I  am  against  killing 
and  against  destruction.    We  are  to  construct. 

10 


Q.     How  are  you  going  to  proceed  to  do  this? 

A.     We  are  not  going  to  force  our  ideals  on  anybody's  mind.    We 

have  conferences;  we  have  lectures.    The  doors  are  open  and 

everybody  is  welcome. 
Q.     You  try  to  get  people  through  advertising  means? 
A.     Yes,  for  educational  purposes. 

Q.     For  the  educational  purposes  of  teaching  them  anarchy? 
A.     To  teach  them  anarchy  the  way  we  understand  it  but  not  the 

way  you  understand  it.    The  way  many  writers  understand  it. 
Q.     What  writers? 
A.     Tolstoi,  Marx,  Ferrer,  Zola,  Kropotkin,  and  many  others." 

At  page  4: 

Q.  Here  is  a  Cultura  Obrera  of  February  2,  1918.  Just  glance 
over  it  and  tell  me  if  you  believe  in  all  that? 

A.     I  read  it  long  ago. 

Q.     Do  you  believe  in  the  sentiments  expressed  therein? 

A.  I  am  not  satisfied  in  part.  I  am  not  sympathizing  with  them 
in  that. 

Q.     Is  that  known  as  an  anarchistic  paper? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Q.     What  kind  of  a  paper  is  it? 

A.  Labor  paper.  Periodico  Obrera  means  labor  paper.  Educa- 
tion, Organization  and  Emancipation. 

Q.     Emancipation  from  what? 

A.     I  suppose  you  know  what  emancipation  means?    Freedom. 

Q.     Freedom  of  what? 

A.     Freedom  of  slavery. 

Q.  There  is  no  slavery  now.  What  do  you  mean?  There  is 
no  slavery  going  on  these  days? 

A.  If  there  is  no  slavery  here  there  may  be  slavery  in  another 
part  of  the  world." 

At  page  7 : 

Q.     What  does  he  mean  by  working  for  the  cause  in  Cuba? 
A.     He  was  interested  in  labor  movements.    What  you  call  today 

Anarchy  is  real  Socialism.    Socialism  of  a  few  years  ago. 
Q.     You  hear  people  say  that  tliey  are  philosophical  anarchists. 

What  do  they  mean  by  that? 

11 


A.  That  is  real  anarchy.  Not  the  anarchy  the  way  you  explain 
it  as  throwing  bombs.  Philosophy  of  anarchism  is  real  social- 
ism. These  papers  are  sold  on  the  news-stands  in  South 
America  and  the  boys  sell  them  on  the  street  morning  and 
evening  and  nobody  says  anything  about  it.  They  don't  tell 
people  to  kill  anybody  or  to  destroy  fields. 

Lopez  himself  summed  up  his  own  case  at  the  hearing 
before  the  Immigration  Inspector.  The  last  question  he  was 
asked  was: 

"Q.  If  you  are  ordered  deported  do  you  Avant  to  be  separated 
from  your  wife  and  boy  or  would  you  desire  to  have  them  go 
W'ith  you  to  Spain? 

A.  It's  up  to  the  Government;  I  think  it  is  an  injustice;  I  have 
done  nothing  wrong;  I  call  it  an  injustice;  if  a  man  is  going  to 
be  punished  for  his  thoughts  and  his  ideas  it  is  an  injustice." 
(Italics  ours). 

This  case  was  argued  at  length  before  Judge  Knox  and 
brief  submitted.  Judge  Knox  rendered  an  opinion,  which  is 
attached  to  this  report  as  Appendix  III. 

Difficulty  in  Reaching  Prisoners 

The  general  public  is  under  the  impression  that  the  writ 
of  habeas  corpus  is  always  an  efficacious  remedy.  Unfortun- 
ately this  ancient  Anglo-Saxon  right  has  lost  almost  all  of  its 
liberating  magic.  If  officials  were  really  interested  in  protect- 
ing prisoners  in  their  rights  their  course  would  be  a  compara- 
tively easy  one.  Unfortunately  the  reverse  is  the  case.  The 
Port  of  New  York  (Ellis  Island),  for  instance,  under  the  guise 
of  protecting  immigrants  against  unscrupulous  lawyers,  debars 
attorneys  and  permits  no  one  to  enter  without  a  pass.  In  a  cer- 
tain case  the  subordinates  placed  so  many  obstacles  in  the  way 
of  the  attorney  in  his  effort  to  get  the  petition  for  the  writ  signed 

12 


by  the  prisoner  that  his  representative  was  obliged  to  carry  it  to 
the  prisoner  smuggled  in  his  socks! 

But  it  may  be  claimed  that  the  attorney  can  sign  the  appli- 
cation for  the  writ  himself  and  avoid  these  difficulties.  That 
such  procedure  is  not  practicable  may  be  seen  from  the  experi- 
ence of  my  colleague,  Mr.  Walter  Nelles,  Counsel  for  the  Na- 
tional Civil  Liberties  Bureau. 

Acting  on  telegraphic  instructions  from  Spokane,  Wash., 
Mr.  Nelles  applied  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  to  prevent  the 
deportation  of  six  Scandinavians  on  the  ground  that  they  had 
not  had  a  fair  hearing  and  that  there  had  been  no  evidence  to 
sustain  the  charges  against  them.  He  signed  the  application 
for  the  writ  himself  because  of  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of 
communicating  with  his  clients.  The  prisoners,  who  had  been 
held  incommunicado,  did  not  know  that  their  friends  in  Spokane 
had  retained  a  lawyer  to  protect  them.  The  first  time  the  at- 
torney saw  his  clients  was  when  they  were  produced  before 
Judge  Augustus  N.  Hand,  in  the  Federal  Court  in  New  York. 
They  were  asked  if  they  knew  Mr.  Nelles,  to  which  they  of 
course  replied  in  the  negative.  The  lawyer  offered  to  show  the 
men  the  telegram  he  had  received  from  Spokane  and  to  ask 
them  if  they  approved  the  retainer.  To  this  the  Assistant  United 
States  Attorney  objected. 

"I  shall  sustain  the  objection,"  ruled  the  Judge,  "I  am  not 
going  to  allow  attorneys  to  be  employed  by  ratification  after- 
wards." 

The  proceedings  were  tlien  dismissed  on  the  ground  that 
the  attorney  had  no  right  to  represent  the  men  and  the  aliens 
were  returned  to  Ellis  Island  and  deported  to  Sweden.  The 
following  facts  were  brought  out  in  court  in  relation  to  the  "due 
process  of  law"  at  the  hearing  in  the  state  of  Washington: 

Q.     Did  you  have  a  hearing  before  the  Commissioner  of  Immi- 
gration in  Washington? 

13 


A.     Yes,  we  had  a  kind  of  a  hearing  there. 
Q.     Did  you  ask  for  a  lawyer. 

A.     I  asked  to  have  a  chance  to  get  into  communication  with  an 
attorney,  he  told  us  we  could,  but  he  never  gave  us  a  chance 
to  do  it. 
Q.     What  do  you  mean  by  tliat? 

A.     Well,  they  threw  us  in  the  Black  Hole  until  the  22nd  of 
'  April  and'  took  us  out  and  gave  us  a  hearing." 

These  questions  were  addressed  to  David  E.  Jolinson,  one 
of  the  aliens.  There  was  no  inquiry  into  the  merits  of  this  case 
but  the  U.  S.  Attorney  privately  showed  the  Judge  various  docu- 
ments, one  being  a  radical  looking  pamphlet  with  red  covers. 
The  statements  made  to  the  Judge  by  the  attorney,  Mr.  Nelles 
states,  were  inaudible  and  tlie  pamplilets  were  not  made  a  part 
of  the  record.  The  names  of  the  deported  men  are:  David  E. 
Johnson,  Henning  Anderson,  Lars  Anderson,  Edwin  Berg, 
Charles  Spanberg  and  Nels  Madison.  Some  of  them  had  been 
in  this  country  as  long  as  fifteen  years. 

Seattle  Cases 

The  National  Civil  Liberties  Bureau  reports  the  cases  of  the 
following  aliens, — Henry  W.  Watts,  Achille  Ricci,  Bartlomeo 
Massulo,  Vincenzo  Zacagnini,  Emilio  Ghelfi,  Ottavio  Ponnani, 
Giuseppe  DeMatteis,  George  Painich,  Titinio  Dentino,  Pietro 
Belli,  Carmello  Fillippini,  Annidale  Sciallo,  Giuseppe  Bertol- 
lotti,  Francisco  Goggi,  all  held  for  deportation  in  Seattle,  Wash., 
on  the  ground  that  they  were  dangerous  anarchists.  The  hear- 
ings of  tliese  aliens  took  place  in  the  months  of  November  and 
December,  1917,  in  Seattle,  before  Immigration  Inspectors 
Fischer  and  Burford. 

The  record  discloses  the  following  facts.  All  of  these 
men,  Italians  except  Watts  and  Painich,  were  arrested  on  De- 
partment warrants  as  the  result  of  a  raid  made  on  the  Circulo 

].4 


Studi  Sociale.  The  most  damaging  evidence  against  them  dis- 
closed the  following  facts:  that  they  subscribed  to  a  paper 
called  "Cronacca  Suwersia";  that  they  sympathized  with  labor 
leaders  under  arrest;  that  they  contributed  to  the  Mooney  de- 
fense funds  and  sent  contributions  to  the  strikers  in  the  Messaba 
Range. 

While  the  record  does  not  disclose  the  nature  of  the  pub- 
lication it  is  stated  by  agents  of  the  Department  of  Justice  that 
the  "Cronacca  Suwersia"  is  a  dangerous  paper  advocating  an- 
archy and  sabotage.  The  record  mentions,  however,  the  pos- 
session of  several  publications,  but  upon  inquiry  they  turn  out 
to  be  mainly  books  on  health  and  hygiene.  Only  two  of  the 
aliens  were  found  to  be  circulating  the  paper.  The  others  were 
merely  subscribers.  It  is  also  true  that  books  dealing  with 
different  scientific  subjects  were  found  in  their  homes.  These 
dealt  with  topics  ranging  from  the  Darwinian  theory  to  Social- 
ism and  Philosophical  Anarchy.  But  most  of  these  men  did 
not  understand  the  books,  never  read  them,  and  merely  bought 
them  to  help  the  "cause"  along.  All  felt  this  to  be  the  cause 
of  the  worker  in  his  desire  to  better  his  condition  but  their  ideas 
of  attaining  that  end  were  varied,  confused  and  indefinite.  For 
instance  Massulo  testified  on  pages  3  and  4  of  his  record: 

A,     The  anarchist  society  is  not  a  society,  everybody  can  be  one. 

Get  those  papers,  read  them,  if  you  like  them  get  them  again, 

if  you  don't  like  them,  don't  get  them. 
Q.     Do  you  believe  in  anarchy? 
A.     I  don't  believe.     I  am  a  working  man  and  haven't  got  to  the 

bottom  of  the  books. 

Ghef  i,  on  page  3  of  his  record,  says : 
A.     Some  one  showed  me  the  paper  and  told  me  that  it  was  a  good 

paper  for  the  working  class  of  men. 
A.     The  first  time  I  bought  the  paper  I  read  a  few  of  the  papers 

and  I  did  not  like  it. 

15 


Bertollotti  is  an  evolutionist.  He  makes  a  special  point  of 
correcting  the  Inspector  when  the  latter  mistook  him  for  a 
fatalist.  A  poet  has  been  lost  to  the  world  in  the  miner  Ber- 
tollotti. 

Belli  testifies  on  page  12  of  his  record,  in  answer  to  the 
question,  "Now,  did  you  consider  it  a  crime  to  read  the  papers," 
"I  do  not  know;  I  am  reading  whatever  I  understand  and  what- 
ever pleases,  I  take  notice  of;  whatever  I  do  not  understand 
I  pass  it  on." 

The  testimony  of  George  Painich,  the  Croatian,  is  interest- 
ing because  it  shows  how  fast  we  are  losing  all  distinction  be- 
tween criminal  and  violent  anarchy  and  the  advocacy  of  politi- 
cal change  by  lawful  means.  Painich  is  a  Socialist,  not  an 
I.  W.  W.  Asked  for  his  opinions,  he  stated  that  he  did  not  be- 
lieve in  sabotage  and  testified,  (page  3),  as  follows  regarding 
revolutionary  means: 

I  don't  believe  in  revolution  today  against  the  government.  The 
workingnian  has  to  put  in  a  different  system  and  then  he  has  to  put 
the  things  through  the  government." 

There  is  a  serious  human  aspect  to  these  cases.  These  men 
had  a  real  stake  in  this  country.  Contrary  to  the  more  usual 
type  of  I.  W.  W.,  some  of  them  own  their  own  homes.  Nearly 
all  had  children  bom  in  this  country.  Their  occupations  were 
those  of  laborers  and  miners,  and  their  families  were  of  course 
entirely  dependent  upon  them  for  support.  There  is  consider- 
able evidence  that  these  men  desired  American  citizenship  and 
were  home  loving  and  law  abiding  persons.  Nevertheless, 
though  fathers  of  families  and  small  property  holders,  several 
are  .'-^scribed  as  "persons  likely  to  become  a  public  charge." 

The  Seattle  cases  admirably  illustrate  the  injustice  possi- 
ble under  the  1917  and  1918  laws.  No  overt  acts  were  charged 
in  the  entire  record  against  any  of  the  aliens.     Noteworthy  is 

16 


the  statement  of  Inspector  Fischer  recommending  the  deporta- 
tion of  Henry  W.  Watts: 

"There  is  no  evidence  to  support  this  charge  as  to  any  individual 
act  of  the  alien.  His  beliefs,  however,  and  the  order  (not  specified)  of 
which  he  is  a  member  and  active  worker  are  such  as  'would  make  it 
very  probable  that  he  has  been  teaching  and  advocating  anything  and 
everything  in  tlie  interest  of  himself  and  this  order.  He  has  been  pub- 
lishing a  newspaper  in  Everett,  and  has  been  a  street  speaker  and  an 
active  organizer  for  the  People's  Council.  He  was  posted  as  to  the 
laws  of  the  United  States  and  was  undoubtedly  prepared  to  defend 
himself  on  all  charges  contained  in  the  warrant  ..." 

What  Is  Anarchy? 

At  this  point  it  may  be  material  to  consider  what  has  been 
held  to  constitute  anarchy  by  the  courts  in  the  past.  It  will 
become  increasingly  important  in  the  immediate  future  for 
them  to  determine  whether  political  beliefs  independent  of  un- 
lawful action  will  be  sufficient  to  include  an  alien  within  the 
terms  of  the  Exclusion  Laws.  That  the  government's  intention 
is  to  include  all  aliens  familiarly  known  as  "Reds"  within  the 
Act  and  ask  for  their  exclusion,  is,  as  we  have  seen,  being  brazen- 
ly asserted  by  the  press. 

The  courts  of  this  State  and  the  United  States  have  defi- 
nitely held  that  a  person  may  peacefully  advocate  a  change  of 
government  by  lawful  means  and  not  come  within  the  "An- 
archy" laws.  Nevertheless,  in  the  first  of  the  cases  cited,  that 
of  Joseph  Komes,  Judge  Knox,  (vide  Appendix  III  to  this  re- 
port), decided  contrary  to  the  technical  interpretation  of  the 
meaning  of  the  word  "Anarchist."^ 


1.    Enc.  Brit.  Vol.  I,  11th  Ed.  page  917  is  illuminating: 

"It  is  important  to  remember  that  the  term  anarchist  is  inevitably  used 
rather  loosely  in  public  in  connection  tvith  the  authors  of  a  certain  class  of 
murderous  outrages  and  that  the  same  looseness  of  definition  often  applies 
to  the  professions  of  "anarchism"  made  by  such  persons.  As  stated  above, 
a  philosophical  anarchist  would  repudiate  the  connection.    And  the  general 

17 


It  is  challenging  to  observe  how  far  we  have  departed  from 
our  traditions  as  expressed  in  Congressional  debates  and  deci- 
sions, by  adopting  a  policy  which  in  effect  bars  out  and  deports 
all  political  refugees  and  forever  destroys  the  much-famed 
"right  of  political  asylum."     When  the  Immigration  Bill  of 


public  view  which  regards  anarchist  doctrines  indiscriminately  is  to  that  ex- 
tent a  confusion  of  terms." 
That   the   temi   "anarchist"   in   its   legal   usage,    contemplates   only   criminal 

anarchy  is  shown  by  the  decision  in  the  case  of  Von  Gerichten  vs.  Seitz,  84  N.  Y. 

Supp.    968,    where    the    complainant    charged    a    slander    in    that    the    defendant 

referred  to  the  plaintiff  as  an  anarcliist.     The  court  says: 

"The  student  of  social  science  and  systems  may  discriminate  between 
the  mere  theorist  who  propounds  doctrines  that  are  regarded  by  a  vast  major- 
ity of  the  people  as  impracticable  and  demoralizing  and  the  destroyer  of 
government  ....  but  the  law  takes  cognizance  of  criminal  anarchy  only, 
and  that  is  defined  in  the  section  of  the  Statutes  above  quoted.  There  may 
be,  as  is  urged  here,  anarchy  which  is  not  under  the  condemnation  of  the 
court  and  with  which  we  have  no  concern." 
The   official  viewpoint   of  the   Department   of  Justice  is  evidenced   from  the 

following  excerpt  of  an  address  on  "The  Suppression  of  Anarchy"  by  Hon.  James 

M.  Beck,  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States  on  January  21,  1902.     (Reported 

American  Law  Review). 

"On  the  threshold  of  the  discussion  it  is  necessary  to  define  the  term 
"anarchy."  The  word  imports  nothing  more  than  disbelief  in  the  efficacy 
of  any  form  of  governmep.t.  The  vagaries  of  the  human  mind  are  like  the 
ways  of  Providence,  'mysterious  and  past  finding  out,'  and  there  is  unques- 
tionably a  class  of  honest  and  laiv-abiding  visionaries,  who  in  a  nebulous  and 
semi-lucid  way,  believe  that  the  interest  of  society  tvould  be  promoted  by  the 
abolition  of  all  government  whatever.  These  doctrinnaries  do  not  believe  in 
war,  or  the  taking  of  human  life  for  any  cause  whatever.  Violence  has  no 
part  in  their  propaganda,  tvhich  is  purely  educational  in  character.  This 
class  of  so-called  philosophical  anarchists  is  small  in  number,  and  does  not 
ordinarily  fall  within  the  commonly  accepted  definition  of  the  word,  which 
in  common  speech  and  to  the  common  understanding  is  applied  to  those  who 
seek  the  abolition  of  government  by  violence.  To  prevent,  however,  any 
criticism  or  question  of  constitutionality  any  legislation  should  pre- 
liminarily define  anarchy  as  a  movement  or  conspiracy  to  subvert 
and  destroy  organized  government  by  violent  and  unlawful  means." 
In  Bliss's  ENCYCLOPEDIA  OF  SOCIAL  REFORM  are  described  the  two 
branches  or  divisions  of  Anarchy, — the  individualist  and  the  communist. 

"The  individualist  anarchists,  though  perhaps  the  fewer  in  number,  are 
in  this  country  especially,  the  abler  body  of  thinkers,  and  carry  out  to  their 
fullest  logical  results  the  principles  which  a  great  many  individualists  accept 
but  do  not  fully  carry  out.  Individualist  anarchists  do  not  believe  in  the  use 
of  force — not  because  they  hold  it  wrong  to  use  it,  but  simply  because  they 
are  aware  that  the  use  of  force  never  truly  liberates,  while  their  aim  is 
absolute  liberty — their  motto  being  'Liberty,  not  the  daughter  but  the  mother 
of  order.'  They  start  from  the  philosophy  of  individual  sovereignty  and  apply 
it  to  the  problem  of  social  science  with  relentless  logic. 

"Anarchist  communists,  on  the  other  hand,  form  a  wholly  different  school 
of  thought.  They  do  not  believe  in  government  and  they  do  believe  in  over- 
throwing it  by  force." 

18 


1903  was  up  for  enactment  in  the  Senate  the  following  debate 
took  place  between  two  Senators.  The  exclusion  clause  in  ques- 
tion was  the  following:  "Polygamists,  anarchists  or  persons  who 
believe  in  or  advocate  the  overthrow  by  force  or  violence  of  any 
government,  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  or  of  all 
governments."  (See  Congressional  Report,  Volume  36,  Part 
I,  Page  1,43). 

Mr.  Hoar:  If  the  Senator  will  allow  me  to  call  his  attention  to 
it,  he  certainly,  I  think,  on  reflection  will  not  wish  to  retain  the  words 
'of  any  government'  because  there  are  governments  of  the  world  that 
ought  to  be  overthrown  by  force  or  violence.  What  does  the  Senator 
say  as  to  the  government  of  the  Moros  at  tliis  moment? 

Mr.  McComas:  I  think  that  remote,  insular  propositions  need 
not  be  interpolated  in  a  definition  of  the  propagandist  of  anarchy  by 
violence. 

Mr.  Hoar:  I  do  not  know  that  I  as  a  member  of  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States  want  to  particularize  all  the  governments.  We  may  be 
on  friendly  terms  with  them;  but  there  are  governments  in  this  world 
that  I,  for  one,  would  overthrow  by  force  and  violence  very  quickly 
if  I  could."  (Congressional  Record,  Volume  36,  Part  I,  Page  44). 
(Italics  ours). 

The  act  subsequently  passed  and  the  words  "any  govern- 
ment" were  omitted.  Let  this  be  compared  with  the  Amend- 
ment of  1918  which  provides  for  the  exclusion  of  aliens,  who 
"advocate  the  duty,  necessity  or  propriety  of  the  unlawful  as- 
saulting or  killing  of  any  officer  or  officers,  either  of  specific 

individuals  or  of  officers  generally or  any  other  organized 

government  because  of  his  or  their  official  character." 

The  Revocation  of  Naturalization 

As  Appendix  IV  there  is  included  in  this  report  a  de- 
cision  rendered   by   Judge   Haight,^   revoking  the   naturaliza- 


1.     U.  S.  vs.  Wusterbarth,  249  Fed.  908.     Vide  also  U.  S.  vs.   Damer,  249 
Fed.  989. 

19 


lion  of  a  citizen  because  of  fraud.  This  case  attracted  con- 
siderable attention  at  the  time,  but  the  procedure  it  illustrates 
is  by  no  means  novel.  In  1912  a  Western  judge  in  the  case 
of  v.  S.  vs.  Raverat^  revoked  the  naturalization  papers  of  a  man 
who  had  become  a  citizen  in  1896  on  the  ground  that  the  man 
was  not  of  good  moral  character  when  admitted  to  citizenship 
and  had  made  the  fraudulent  statement  that  he  was.  These  pre- 
cedents open  the  door  for  wholesale  revocation  of  citizenship 
papers  on  the  theory  that  the  applicants  for  citizenship 
fraudulently  stated  that  they  were  not  opposed  to  organized  gov- 
ernment. Thus  not  only  may  aliens  be  deported  under  our 
present  Deportation  Laws  but  naturalized  citizens 
as    well  through  the  revocation  of  their  naturalization. 

It  may  not  be  amiss  to  mention  this  point  the  anomalous 
position  of  those  who  declare  their  intention  to  become  citizens 
and  never  complete  their  naturalization.  Not  only  are  they  sub- 
ject to  deportation  in  the  same  manner  as  if  they  had  never  de- 
clared their  intention,  but  when  deported  may  find  themselves  in 
a  country  to  which  they  are  strangers  for  the  reason  that  they 
have  renounced  their  allegiance  to  that  country.  Such  aliens, 
deported  to  the  country  of  their  birth,  can  be  barred  by  that 
country  as  aliens  and  will  consequently  be  aliens  the  world  over, 
people  without  a  home,  or  as  the  German  Municipal  law  calls 
them,  Heimatlos.  World  outlawry!  Is  this  to  be  the  fate  of  those 
who  advocate  the  reform  of  political  institutions  and  the  organ- 
ization of  labor? 

It  is  much  to  be  feared  that  under  the  present  system  the 
number  of  persons  who  will  thus  lose  their  citizenship  will  in- 
crease. In  his  excellent  treatise,  Diplomatic  Protection  of 
Citizens  Abroad,  Borchard  says,  on  page  591: 

"A  person  in  this  position  cannot  call  upon  the  diplomatic  pro- 

2.     U.  S.  vs.  Raverat,  222  Fed.  1018. 

20 


tection  of  any  state,  and  it  is  said  that  the  anomalous  situation  of  a 
German  who  by  residence  abroad  for  ten  years,  under  the  law  of  June 
1,  1870,  lost  his  German  nationality,  led  to  the  enactment  of  the  new 
law  of  1913.  The  United  States  has  seemingly  lent  its  aid  to  the 
perpetuation  of  this  unfortunate  system  by  certain  provisions  of  the 
Act  of  March  2,  1907.  For  example,  the  presumption  of  expatriation 
on  the  part  of  a  naturalized  citizen  by  a  residence  of  two  years  in  his 
native  state  or  five  years  in  any  other  state,  may  well  leave  such  a  per- 
son without  any  nationality.  Less  justifiable,  however,  is  the  provision 
of  Paragraph  3  according  to  which  'any  American  woman  who  marries 
a  foreigner  shall  take  the  nationality  of  her  husband,'  apparently  re- 
gardless of  whether  his  national  law  so  provides.  Not  only  may  this 
provision  be  unenforceable,  but  it  may  easily  result  in  depriving  a 
woman  of  American  citizenship  without  conferring  upon  her  any  other. 
The  rule  stated  by  Field,  that  'a  person  who  has  ceased  to  be  a  member 
of  a  nation,  without  having  acquired  another  national  character,  is 
nevertheless  deemed  to  be  a  member  of  the  nation  to  which  he  last  be- 
longed, except  so  far  as  his  rights  and  duties  within  its  territory,  or  in 
relation  to  such  nation,  are  concerned'  can  hardly  be  considered  as  a 
recognized  rule  of  international  law." 

Thus  are  native  American  women  marrying  for- 
eigners also  subject  to  deportation  and  exclusion.     In 

this  connection  it  is  interesting  to  recall  the  prediction  of  Edgar 
Lee  Masters  and  Clarence  S.  Darrow,  made  in  the  Turner  case, 
in  1903: 

"It  is  only  a  step  from  this  power  to  the  right  to  control  citizens 
in  their  beliefs  and  speech.  Some  new  sophistication  of  the  Constitu- 
tion will  furnish  the  reason  for  reviving  the  terrors  and  persecutions 
of  the  middle  ages.  If  men  can  be  deported  at  any  time  within  three 
years  they  can  be  deported  within  any  time  whatsoever,  be  it  twenty  or 
forty  years.  If  the  sovereign  powers  of  the  federal  government  warrant 
Congress  in  excluding  an  alien  for  a  good  reason  or  a  bad  reason  and 
for  deporting  him  within  any  time  within  three  years,  he  can  be  deported 
whenever  his  proscribed  principles,  whatever  they  may  be,  are  dis- 
covered by  the  Federal  constabulary.  And  thus  by  no  stretch  of  imagin- 
ation do  we  see  the  law  develop  into  an  engine  of  despotism  to  be  used 
upon  citizens  of  long  residence  in  this  country.  And  if  these  laws  can  be 

21 


made  valid  against  aliens  then  natured  born  American  citizens  can 
likewise  be  proscribed  and  outlawed  as  to  every  right  or  privilege 
coming  under  the  power  of  the  federal  government.  The  prohibi- 
tion against  ex  post  facto  laws  will  not  hinder  Congress  under 
such  an  interpretation  of  the  Constitution  from  attaching  to  the  laws  of 
naturalization  a  provision  to  withdraw  citizenship  and  to  deport  at  any 
time  whatsoever  and  whensoever  the  proscribed  principles  of  the  un- 
fortunate man  are  ascertained.'"^ 

Native  Bom  Citizens  of  Foreign  Parentage 

Over  and  above  such  patent  injustice  to  admitted  aliens, 
the  fact  should  not  be  overlooked  that  it  has  even  become  possible 
to  exclude  or  deport  citizens  of  the  United  States  by  merely  hold- 
ing them  as  aliens  and  then  putting  them  to  proof  of  their  nativ- 
ity. The  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  in  the  case  of  Chin  Ah  Yoke 
vs.  United  States,^  admitted  that  it  was  obviously  difl&cult  in 
many  cases  to  produce  proof  of  nativity,  and  though  the  proof 
of  the  defendants  having  been  bom  in  the  United  States  was 
quite  clear,  he  was  nevertheless  deported. 

Present  Outlook 

It  is  not  pertinent  to  discuss  here  the  propriety  or  moral 
right  of  a  nation  to  exclude  aliens.  Such  a  discussion  would 
take  us  into  the  field  of  ethics.  The  fact  is  that  at  the  present 
time  Congress  has  power  to  decree  the  exclusion  of  aliens 
forthwith^  without  assignment  of  cause  and  without  a  trial, 


1.  While  the  author  owes  a  great  deal  to  the  brief  of  these  attorneys,  it 
should  be  said  that  the  greater  part  of  this  report  had  been  written  before 
he  secured  it  through  the  courtesy  of  Mr.  Theodore  Scliroeder. 

2.  Chin  Ah  Yoke  vs.  White,  246  Fed.  940. 

3.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  held  regarding  the  rights 
of  exclusion  (Nashimam  Eleu  vs.  U.  S.  142  U.  S.  659)  what  is  believed  to  be  a 
general  principle  regarding  this  matter: 

"It  is  an  accepted  maxim  of  International  Law  that  every  sovereign  nation 
has  the  power  as  inherent  in  sovereignty  and  essential  in  self  preservation  to 
forbid  the  entrance  of  foreigners  within  its  domains  or  to  admit  them  only 

22 


or  after  a  trial  so  grossly  inadequate  as  to  be  a  mere  travesty 
of  justice.  Such  in  fact  are  most  of  the  hearings  before  the 
Immigration  Authorities. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  have  always  had  our  ardent  advo- 
cates of  a  liberal  immigration  policy,  and  shall  have  as  long 
as  railroads,  mines,  wheat  belt,  and  shops  are  in  want  of  cheap 
labor.  Bank  presidents,  archbishops,  rabbis,  professors  will 
all  sing  praises  of  the  new  immigrant  and  cite  the  time-worn 
examples  of  Carl  Schurz,  Dr.  Jacobi,  and  others.  Reverse  the 
picture,  however;  begin  to  organize  this  cheap  labor;  teach  it 
to  meet  the  increased  cost  of  living  with  collective  bargaining; 
then  will  these  eulogists  undergo  swift  metamorphosis  and  re-ap- 
pear as  "vigilantes,"  "protective,"  and  "law-and-order"  leagues. 
Propaganda  will  immediately  be  set  afoot  to  impress  the  public 
with  the  menace  of  the  foreigner,  and  the  once  welcomed  im- 
migrant now  appears  in  the  daily  press  as  "bomb-thrower," 
"wheat-burner,"  "anarchist." 

The  hysteria  soon  reaches  Congress,  and  exclusion  and  de- 
portation of  immigrants  is  the  order  of  the  day.  We  have  en- 
tered upon  a  period  of  reconstruction  which  will  involve  the 


in  such  cases  and  upon  such  conditions  as  it  may  see  fit  to  prescribe." 
The  Supreme  Court  has  also  held  to  a  similar  efiFect  as  to  the  rights  of  expul- 
sion of  aliens,  in  the  case  of  Fong  Yue  Ting  vs.  U.  S.  698,  711. 

"The  right  to  exclude  or  expel  aliens  or  any  class  of  aliens  absolutely  or 
upon  certain  conditions  in  war  or  peace  is  the  inherent  and  inalienable  right 
of  every  sovereign  and  independent  nation,  essential  to  its  safety,  its  indepen- 
dence and  its  welfare." 

This  right  however,  has  been  qualified  by  usages  of  International  Law  and 
Treaties.  For  instance,  in  a  case  in  which  it  was  sought  to  expel  an  American 
citizen  from  a  foreign  country,  the  American  viewpoint  was  expressed  by  Secre- 
tary Gresham  (in  the  Wiener  case)   thus: 

"That  universal  sense  of  right  and  justice  which  suggests  that  no  man 
should  be  condemned  ivithout  a  hearing  would  seem  to  require  that  the  per- 
son singled  out  for  expulsion  should  as  a  general  rule,  first  be  notified  of  the 
charges  against  him  and  given  an  opportunity  to  refute  them.  If  the  case 
is  so  urgent  and  the  presence  of  the  foreigner  so  dangerous  to  the  State  that 
this  cannot  with  safety  be  done,  the  expelling  Government  is  under  obliga- 
tion to  the  Government  of  the  person  expelled  to  explain  the  grounds  of  its 
action,  by  not  only  asserting,  but  proving  the  existence  of  facts  sufficient  to 
justify  the  expulsion."    Vide  also  U.  S.  vs.  Wong  Kim  Ark,  169  U.  S.  649. 

23 


working  class  in  much  economic  distress.  Labor  will  look  to 
Congress  for  relief,  and  Congress  will  be  forced  to  "do  some- 
thing." Deporting  aliens  is  a  measure  which  at  the  same  time 
relieves  the  legislative  conscience  and  places  the  blame  for 
industrial  unrest  squarely  upon  the  unpopular  wing  of  the 
workers.  The  coming  Republican  Congress  can  be  expected  to 
increase  rather  than  lessen  the  drastic  tenor  of  the  Immigration 
Act.  At  the  present  time  the  law  in  its  application  resembles  the 
lettre  de  cachet  of  the  Bourbons.  It  is  being  used  to  silence  all 
opposition  and  to  render  impotent  all  those  who  dissent  or  object. 
In  view  of  Judge  Haight's  decision  in  New  Jersey,  it  is  parti- 
cularly obnoxious. 

Commissioner  Caminetti's  reputed  statement  of  January 
10th,  that  the  Immigration  Service  "will  not  arrest,  detain  or 
deport  anyone  merely  for  membership  in  the  I.  W.  W."  would 
be  more  reassuring  were  it  not  for  the  records  in  some  of  the 
cases  described  above. 

The  immigrant  population  here  has  indubitably  done  its 
share  of  building  and  improving  the  conditions  of  this  country. 
It  has  done  its  share  of  fighting  and  dying  for  it — both  on  battle- 
fields, and  in  mines  and  shops.  It  has  therefore  as  much  right 
to  a  say-so  about  the  improvement  of  living  conditions  in  this 
country  as  the  native  population.  If  the  immigrant  seems 
stronger  in  his  protest  than  the  native,  it  is  because  his  protest  is 
immediately  stigmatized  as  a  distinctly  foreign  one,  and  also  be- 
cause the  immigrants  in  this  land  are  the  poorest  working  class — 
the  class  which  does  the  greatest  amount  of  hard  labor  and  which 
suffers  most  from  discrimination.  The  weapons  which  Congress 
has  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  reactionaries,  by  the  enactment 
of  a  law  capable  of  the  interpretations  which  have  been  placed 
upon  the  one  in  question,  will  soon  stifle  all  opposition  and  make 
every  immigrant,  whether  naturalized  or  not,  insecure  in  his 

24 


position  in  this  country.    His  political  status  will  be  reduced  to 
that  of  an  abject  and  fearing  slave  of  the  Government. 

Let  us  remember  one  of  our  earliest  immigrants,  one  who 
helped  to  write  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  who  first  used 
the  words  "United  States  of  America" — Thomas  Paine.  I  do 
not  hesitate  a  moment  to  say  that  under  the  present  system  of  ex- 
clusion and  deportation,  the  author  of  "Common  Sense,"  the 
man  who  helped  to  cheer  and  encourage  the  Revolutionary 
forces  at  Valley  Forge,  would  be  the  first  to  be  branded  "An- 
archist" and  cast  off  by  the  very  country  which  he  fought  so 
hard  and  bitterly  to  establish. 

We  are  about  to  found  a  League  of  Nations  on  the  theory 
that  the  peoples  of  the  earth  have  so  much  in  common  that  it  is 
impossible  to  injure  one  without  injuring  all.  To  cast  out  men 
and  women,  whose  young  and  strong  years  of  labor  have  been 
freely  given  to  this  country  and  to  dump  them  back  into  a  foreign 
land  whose  very  tongue  they  may  have  forgotten,  as  a  punish- 
ment for  criticism  of  our  institutions, — is  not  that  a  contradic- 
tion of  the  very  spirit  of  such  a  League? 

In  submitting  this  report  I  can  suggest  no  remedy  for  the 
situation  except  such  as  may  be  derived  from  Congressional 
action.  The  Bourbons  who  have  "forgotten  nothing,  and  learn- 
ed nothing"  are  again  seeking  to  penalize  men  by  excluding 
and  deporting  them  merely  for  their  opinions  and  beliefs  in 
order  to  stamp  out  "dissent  and  similar  crimes."  I  can  but 
hope,  however,  that  the  general  public,  once  fully  informed 
about  the  workings  of  this  law,  will  demand  its  immediate 
restriction  or  repeal. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

CHARLES  RECHT, 

Counsel 


25 


APPENDIX    I 

Elxcerpts  from  the  Immigration  Law,  bearing  on  Deportation, 

together  with  the  Amendment  of  1918. 

Sec.  19.  That  at  any  time  within  five  years  after  entry,  any 
alien  who  at  the  time  of  entry  was  a  member  of  one  or  more  of  the 
classes  excluded  by  law;  any  alien  who  shall  have  entered  or  who  shall 
be  found  in  the  United  States  in  violation  of  this  act,  or  in  violation 
of  any  other  law  of  the  United  States;  any  alien  who  at  any  time  after 
entry  shall  be  found  advocating  or  teaching  the  unlawful  destruction 
of  property,  or  advocating  or  teaching  anarchy,  or  the  overthrow  by 
force  or  violence  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  or  of  all 
forms  of  law  or  the  assassination  of  public  officials;  any  alien  who 
within  five  years  after  entry  becomes  a  public  charge  from  causes  not 
affirmatively  shown  to  have  arisen  subsequent  to  landing;  except  as 
hereinafter  provided,  any  alien  who  is  hereafter  sentenced  to  imprison- 
ment for  a  term  of  one  year  or  more  because  of  conviction  in  this 
country  of  a  crime  involving  moral  turpitude,  committed  within  five 
years  after  the  entry  of  the  alien  to  the  United  States,  or  who  is  here- 
after sentenced  more  than  once  to  such  a  term  of  imprisonment  because 
of  conviction  in  this  country  of  any  crime  involving  moral  turpitude, 
committed  at  any  time  after  entry; any  alien  who  was  con- 
victed, or  who  admits  the  commission,  prior  to  entry,  of  a  felony  or 
other  crime  or  misdemeanor  involving  moral  turpitude;  ....  Pro- 
vided further.  That  the  provision  of  this  section  respecting  the  depor- 
tation of  aliens  convicted  of  a  crime  involving  moral  turpitude  shall 
not  apply  to  one  who  has  been  pardoned,  nor  shall  such  deportation  be 
made  or  directed  if  the  court,  or  judge  thereof,  sentencing  such  alien 
for  such  crime  shall,  at  the  time  of  imposing  or  passing  sentence  or 
within  thirty  days  thereafter,  due  notice  having  first  been  given  to 
representatives  of  the  State,  make  a  recommendation  to  the  Secretary 
of  Labor  that  such  alien  shall  not  be  deported  in  pursuance  of  this  act; 
nor  shall  any  alien  convicted  as  aforesaid  be  deported  until  after  the 
termination  of  his  imprisonment:  Provided  further.  That  the  provi- 
sions of  this  section,  with  the  exceptions  hereinbefore  noted,  shall  be 
applicable  to  the  classes  of  aliens  therein  mentioned  irrespective  of  the 
time  of  their  entry  into  the  United  States:  Provided  further.  That  the 
provisions  of  this  section  shall  also  apply  to  the  cases  of  aliens  who 
come  to  the  mainland  of  the  United  States  from  the  insular  possessions 
thereof:    Provided  further.  That  any  person  who  shall  be  arrested  under 

26 


the  provisions  of  this  section,  on  the  ground  that  he  has  entered  or  been 
found  in  the  United  States  in  violation  of  any  other  law  thereof  which 
imposes  on  such  person  the  burden  of  proving  his  right  to  enter  or 
remain,  and  who  shall  fail  to  establish  the  existence  of  the  right 
claimed,  shall  be  deported  to  the  place  specified  in  such  other  law. 
In  every  case  where  any  person  is  ordered  deported  from  the  United 
States  under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  or  of  any  law  or  treaty,  the 
decision  of  the  Secretary  of  Labor  shall  be  final. 

Sec.  20.  That  the  deportation  of  aliens  provided  for  in  this  act 
shall,  at  the  option  of  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  be  to  the  country  whence 
they  came  or  to  the  foreign  port  at  which  such  aliens  embarked  for  the 
United  States;  or,  if  such  embarkation  was  for  foreign  contiguous 
territory,  to  the  foreign  port  at  which  they  embarked  for  such  territory ; 
or,  if  such  aliens  entered  foreign  contiguous  territory  from  the  United 
States  and  later  entered  the  United  States,  or  if  such  aliens  are  held 
by  the  country  from  which  they  entered  the  United  States  not  to  be 
subjects  or  citizens  of  such  country,  and  such  country  refuses  to  per- 
mit their  re-entry,  or  imposes  any  condition  upon  permitting  re-entry, 
then  to  the  country  in  which  they  resided  prior  to  entering  the  country 
from  which  they  entered  the  United  States 

Sec.  28.  That  any  person  who  knowingly  aids  or  assists  any 
anarchist  or  any  person  who  believes  in  or  advocates  the  overthrow 
by  force  or  violence  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  or  who 
disbelieves  in  or  is  opposed  to  organized  government,  or  all  forms  of 
law,  or  who  advocates  the  assassination  of  public  ofiBcials,  or  who  is 
a  member  of  or  affiliated  with  any  organization  entertaining  or  teach- 
ing disbelief  in  or  opposition  to  organized  government,  or  who  advo- 
cates or  teaches  the  duty,  necessity,  or  propriety  of  the  unlawful  as- 
saulting or  killing  of  any  officer  or  officers,  either  of  specific  individ- 
uals or  of  officers  generally,  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  or 
of  any  other  organized  government,  because  of  his  or  their  official 
character,  to  enter  the  United  States,  or  who  connives  or  conspires 
with  any  person  or  persons  to  allow,  procure,  or  permit  any  such 
anarchist  or  person  aforesaid  to  enter  therein,  shall  be  deemed  guilty 
of  a  felony,  and  on  conviction  thereof  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of 
not  more  than  $5,000  or  by  imprisonment  for  not  more  than  five  years, 
or  both 

Any  person  who  knowingly  aids  or  assists  any  alien  who  advo- 
cates or  teaches  the  unlawful  destruction  of  property  to  enter  the 
United  States  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  on  convic- 
tion shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  more  than  $1,000  or  by  im- 
prisonment for  not  more  than  six  montlis,  or  by  both  such  fine  and 
imprisonment. 

These  sections  are  amplified  by  Rule  22  of  the  Immigra- 

27 


tion  Rules,  such  rules  having  by  virtue  of  the  law  the  same 
effect  as  the  law  itself.    Sub-division  1,  Rule  22,  provides: 

Subdivision  1,  Classes  of  warrant  cases. — All  cases  in  which 
aliens  may  be  arrested  and  deported  are  either  stated  in  detail  or  men- 
tioned in  Section  19.  They  fall  into  the  following  divisions.  With 
respect  to  each  of  these  divisions  the  law  is  retrospective  or  not  and  the 
time  within  which  deportation  proceedings  may  be  instituted  is  limited 
or  not,  as  indicated  below. 

(a)  Any  alien  who  has  entered  the  United  States  prior  to  May 
1,  1917,  and  who  at  the  time  of  entry  was  a  member  of  any  one  of  the 
classes  excluded  under  any  provision  of  the  Immigration  Act  of  Feb- 
ruary 20,  1917;  limitation  five  years;  retrospective. 

(i)  Any  alien  who  may  be  sentenced  to  imprisonment  for  a  term 
of  one  year  or  more  because  of  conviction  in  this  country  of  a  crime 
involving  moral  turpitude,  unless  such  alien  has  been  pardoned  or  the 
court  or  judge  sentencing  him  has  recommended  to  the  department, 
at  the  time  of  imposing  sentence  or  within  30  days  thereafter,  that  he 
be  not  deported;  limitation — that  the  crime  shall  have  been  committed 
within  five  years  after  entry;  retrospective  with  respect  to  time  of 
entry,  but  not  retrospective  with  respect  to  conviction;  deportation 
shall  not  occur  until  termination  of  imprisonment. 

(j)  Any  alien  who  may  be  sentenced  more  than  once  to  imprison- 
ment for  a  term  of  one  year  or  more  because  of  conviction  in  this  coun- 
try of  a  crime  involving  moral  turpitude,  unless  such  alien  has  been 
pardoned  or  the  court  or  judge  sentencing  him  has  recommended  to 
the  department,  at  the  time  of  imposing  sentence  or  within  30  days 
thereafter,  that  he  be  not  deported;  no  limitation;  retrospective 
with  respect  to  time  of  entry,  but  retrospective  with  respect  to  con- 
viction; deportation  shall  not  be  effected  until  termination  of  imprison- 
ment   

(s)  Any  alien  who  was  convicted  or  who  admits  the  commission 
prior  to  entry  of  a  felony  or  other  crime  or  misdemeanor  involving 
moral  turpitude;  no  limitation;  retrospective. 

(t)  Any  alien  who  shall  be  found  advocating  or  teaching  the 
unlawful  destruction  of  property;  no  limitation;  retrospective. 

(u)  Any  alien  who  shall  be  found  advocating  or  teaching  an- 
archy, or  the  overthrow  by  force  or  violence  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  or  of  all  forms  of  law  or  the  assassination  of  public 
officials;  no  limitation;  retrospective. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  these  sections  are  supple- 
mented by  an  amendment  passed  in  October,  1918,  which 
provides  as  follows: 

28 


"BE  IT  ENACTED  BY  THE  SENATE  AND  HOUSE  OF  REP- 
RESENTATIVES OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA  IN 
CONGRESS  ASSEMBLED,  That  aliens  who  are  anarchists;  aliens  who 
believe  in  or  advocate  the  overthrow  by  force  or  violence  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  or  of  all  forms  of  law;  aliens  who  dis- 
believe in  or  are  opposed  to  all  organized  government;  aliens  who  ad- 
vocate or  teach  the  assassination  of  public  officials;  aliens  who  advo- 
cate or  teach  the  unlawful  destruction  of  property;  aliens  who  are 
members  of  or  affiliated  with  any  organization  that  entertains  a  belief 
in,  teaches,  or  advocates  the  overthrow  by  force  or  violence  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  or  of  all  forms  of  law,  or  that  entertains 
or  teaches  disbelief  in  or  opposition  to  all  organized  government,  or 
that  advocates  the  duty,  necessity,  or  propriety  of  the  unlawful  assault- 
ing or  killing  of  any  officer  or  officers,  either  of  specific  individuals  or 
of  officers  generally,  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  or  of  any 
other  organized  government,  because  of  his  or  their  official  character, 
or  that  advocates  or  teaches  the  unlawful  destruction  of  property  shall 
be  excluded  from  admission  into  the  United  States. 

Sec.  2.  That  any  alien  who,  at  any  time  after  entering  the  United 
States,  is  found  to  have  been  at  the  time  of  entry,  or  to  have  become 
thereafter,  a  member  of  any  one  of  the  classes  of  aliens  enumerated  in 
Section  I  of  this  act,  shall,  upon  the  warrant  of  the  Secretary  of 
Labor,  be  taken  into  custody  and  deported  in  the  manner  provided  in 
the  Immigration  Act  of  February  fifth,  nineteen  hundred  and  seven- 
teen. The  provision  of  this  section  shall  be  applicable  to  the  classes 
of  aliens  mentioned  in  this  act  irrespective  of  the  time  of  their  entry 
into  the  United  States. 

Sec.  3.  That  any  alien  who  shall,  after  he  has  been  excluded  and 
deported  or  arrested  and  deported  in  pursuance  of  the  provisions  of  this 
act,  thereafter  return  to  or  enter  the  United  States  or  attempt  to  re- 
turn to  or  to  enter  the  United  States  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  felony, 
and  upon  conviction  thereof  shall  be  punished  by  imprisonment  for 
a  term  of  not  more  than  five  years;  and  shall,  upon  the  termination 
of  such  imprisonment,  be  taken  into  custody,  upon  the  warrant  of  the 
Secretary  of  Labor,  and  deported  in  the  manner  provided  in  the  Im- 
migration Act  of  February  fifth,  nineteen  hundred  and  seventeen." 

APPENDIX    II 

Letter  of  John  Meehan  to  Inspector  McKee 

Ellis  Island,  N.  Y., 

Dec.  5,  1918. 

Mr.  McKee:— 

I  understand  I  am  to  sail  for  England  tomorrow.  Would  it  be  too 
much  for  me  to  ask  that  I  be  given  suitable  clothing  so  that  I  may  leave 

29 


as  I  entered  almost  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago?  No  charity  organization 
donated  the  clothing  I  then  wore.  I  have  been  forced  to  wear  out.  in 
idleness  all  those  I  had  when  arrested  almost  nineteen  months  ago.  Am 
I  not  justified  in  asking  whoever  is  responsible  for  the  use  of  this  force 
ti  furnish  me  with  those  things.  I  must  have  unless  I  am  to  be  looked 
on  in  commiseration  and  my  health  menaced.  I  see  clearly  what  is 
ahead  of  me  hence  this  note  to  you. 

Yours, 

John  Meehan. 


Dec.  9th. 

Nothing  doing  here  for  you,  says  Mr.  McKee,  so  I  leave  ragged 
and  bare-headed.  I  wrote  again  on  the  8th  was  that  censored  also? 
I  have  been  here  a  year  this  is  the  first  time  I  was  notified  to  write 
on  only  one  side  of  paper.  However,  we  must  take  into  consideration 
the  fact  that  the  war  is  over  (?)  so  it  is  not  necessary  to  save  paper 
to  win  it. 

J.  M. 

Appendix     Ila 

Letter  of  John  Meehan  to  Charles  Recht,  Attorney 

Ellis  Island,  N.  Y., 

Dec.  5,  1918. 
Mr.  Charles  Recht, 
Dear  Sir: — 

Received  your  letter  and  enclosures.  I  believe  the  U.  S.  has 
nothing  to  say  of  the  country,  that  is,  the  country  to  which  I  am  to 
be  deported.  It's  up  to  the  Canadian  Government.  Under  the  circum- 
stances the  latter  is  not  justified  in  prohibiting  me  landing  in  that 
country.  However,  I  hear  I  am  to  be  shipped  Saturday  next,  being 
eager  to  leave  this  place,  drop  the  hope  willingly.  Please  accept  my 
thanks  for  going  to  so  much  trouble  on  my  account.  Had  you  not  come 
I  am  sure  the  powers  that  be  would  not  have  taken  action.  When  you 
asked  for  a  pass  the  news  was  phoned  over,  and  they  got  down  to 
business  at  once.  Of  course  this  is  only  surmizing  but  I  think  it  hits 
the  truth.    Thanking  you  again, 

Gratefully  yours, 

John  Meehan. 

More  Power  to  You! 
Note: — We  endeavored  to  have  Meehan  deported  to  Saskatche- 
wan where  he  had  a  brother,  instead  of  to  England  where  he  was  a  total 
stranger;  but  the  Canadian  Government  objected.     (In  Canada  it  is  a 
crime  to  belong  to  the  I.  W.  W.  organization). 

30 


APPENDIX  III 
Judge  Knox's  Decision  in  the  Lopez  Case 

The  traverse  herein  raises  only  questions  of  law  and  as  a  conse- 
quence the  record  of  the  case  before  me  is  sufficient  for  its  disposition. 

The  relator  objects  to  his  deportation  upon  the  ground  that  since 
he  is  a  "Philosophical  anarchist"  rather  than  the  type  which  believe  in 
assassination  and  other  violence  for  the  accomplishment  of  their  ends, 
he  does  not  come  within  the  class  of  persons  denounced  by  the  Im- 
migration Act  of  February  5,  1917. 

The  opportunity  is  thus  afforded  me  to  enter  upon  an  expression 
of  my  views  as  to  the  varying  degrees  of  anarchy  with  which  society 
is  more  or  less  afflicted.  However,  I  shall  refrain  and  content  myself 
solely  with  the  observation  that  in  my  judgment,  the  very  theory  of 
anarchy  is  opposed  to  that  of  organized  government.  The  theory  of 
anarchy  and  that  of  government  must  at  all  times  be  in  conflict,  and 
I  cannot  believe  that  the  philosophical  anarchist,  at  least  so  far  as  his 
ultimate  purpose  is  concerned  is  any  less  dangerous  than  is  the  advo- 
cate of  violence.  Indeed  in  a  sense  the  insidious  character  of  the 
teachings  of  the  one  is  more  to  be  feared  than  are  the  teachings,  and 
activities  of  the  other.  It  may  be  that  I  am  lacking  in  liberality  of 
thought,  but  I  am  unable  to  divorce  my  mind  from  the  idea  that  the 
doctrinnaire  who  spreads  his  doctrine  that  all  forms  of  government  as 
we  know  them  shall  be  subverted  to  a  so-called  citizenry  of  the  world 
is  an  anarchist,  and  as  such  comes  within  both  the  terms  and  spirit 
of  the  Act  of  Congress  upon  the  subject,  and  that  such  person  may 
lawfully  be  excluded  from  the  country.  I  find  no  merit  in  the  tech- 
nical objections  raised.  The  conclusion  that  the  relator  has  been  found 
advocating  and  teaching  anarchy  is  amply  sustained  by  the  record  and 
the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  will  accordingly  be  dismissed. 

JOHN  C.  KNOX, 

V.  S.  D.  J. 
December  9,  1918. 

APPENDIX   IV 

Judge  Haight's  Decision  in  U.  S.  vs.  Wusterbarth 

(District  Court,  D.  New  Jersey.  May  13,  1918). 
Haight,  District  Judge.  This  is  a  proceeding  instituted  by  the 
United  States  attorney  for  this  district  under  section  15  of  the  Natural- 
ization Act  of  June  29,  1906  (34  tat.  L.  596,  601,  c.  3592  [Comp.  St. 
1916,  §4374] ) ,  to  cancel  a  certificate  of  citizenship  granted  to  Frederick 
W.  Wusterbarth,  the  respondent,  by  the  court  of  common  pleas  of  the 
county  of  Passaic,  in  the  state  of  New  Jersey,  on  the  groimd  that  it 
was  fraudulently  and  illegally  procured.    The  certificate  was  issued  on 

31 


November  3,  1882;  the  respondent  being  a  native  of  Germany  and  a 
subject  of  the  German  emperor.  The  fraud  alleged  is  that  the  respon- 
dent declared  under  oath  that  he  absolutely  and  entirely  renounced  and 
abjured  all  allegiance  and  fidelity  to  any  sovereignty,  and  particularly 
to  the  emperor  of  Germany,  whereas  in  fact  he  did  not  do  so,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  retained  an  allegiance  to  Germany  and  its  ruler.  The 
matter  has  come  on  for  hearing  on  the  issues  raised  by  the  petition  of 
the  district  attorney  (to  which  were  attached  affidavits  supporting  its 
allegations),  and  the  anwser  of  the  respondent.  Upon  the  hearing  the 
government  proved,  in  substance,  the  following  facts,  viz.: 

Within  a  few  days  after  the  outbreak  of  the  present  war  between 
the  United  States  and  the  German  Empire,  the  respondent  was  ap- 
proached by  two  ladies  interested  in  a  local  chapter  of  the  American 
Red  Cross,  in  an  effort  to  induce  him  to  contribute  money  to  that  or- 
ganization, upon  which  appeal  the  respondent  became  angry,  and  re- 
plied in  substance  that  he  would  not  do  so;  that  he  would  do  nothing 
to  injure  the  country  in  which  he  had  been  born,  brought  up,  and 
educated.  Subsequently,  in  the  month  of  June  following,  another 
woman,  who  was  likewise  interested  in  the  same  chapter  of  the  Amer- 
ican Red  Cross,  visited  him,  and  asked  him  to  become  a  member.  He 
angrily  refused  to  do  so,  stating  that  he  would  give  no  money  to  send 
soldiers  to  the  country  where  he  was  born  and  educated,  and,  in  reply 
to  some  arguments  which  the  solicitor  advanced,  stated  that  she  did 
not  know  what  it  meant  to  be  born  in  a  country,  and  then  have  men 
go  over  and  fight  against  that  country.  In  the  month  of  November, 
1917,  the  respondent  was  approached  by  two  gentlemen,  in  an  effort 
to  induce  him  to  subscribe  to  the  funds  which  the  Young  Men's  Chris- 
tian Association  was  then  raising  for  war  work.  At  that  time  he 
stated  he  would  do  nothing  to  help  defeat  Germany  and  in  response 
to  a  question  as  to  whether  he  did  not  want  America  to  win  the  war 
he  replied  that  he  did  not;  that  he  had  relatives  in  Germany.  He  made 
the  same  rejoinder  to  the  question  as  to  whether  he  did  not  want  the 
American  soldiers  in  camps  and  cantonments  to  be  well  taken  care  of; 
and,  in  reply  to  a  statement  made  to  him  that  he  was  better  off  than 
most  Americans,  he  replied  that  he  only  came  to  this  country  on  a 
vacation  or  visit 

The  question,  therefore,  on  which  the  decision  of  this  case  de- 
pends, is  whether  it  may  be  legitimately  inferred  as  a  fact,  from  his 

32 


present  state  of  mind,  coupled  with  the  circumstances  to  be  hereinafter 
referred  to,  that  he  was  of  the  same  mind  at  the  time  he  took  the  oath 
of  allegiance  and  renunciation.  In  that  aspect  the  case  is  one  of  first 
impression,  so  far  as  I  am  informed  or  have  been  able  to  ascertain. 
It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  respondent  did  not  express  any  dis- 
satisfaction Avith  the  aims  and  purposes  of  this  country  in  the  present 
war,  or  with  the  reasons  which  had  induced  Congress  to  declare  war, 
but  that  he  boldly  took  the  position  that  he  would  do  nothing  to  injure 
the  country  of  his  birth,  and  did  not  wish  this  country  to  win  the  present 
war,  because  of  the  ties  which  bound  him  to  Germany.  As  the  years 
succeeding  his  naturalization  passed,  coupled  with  the  fact  that  he 
continued  to  dwell  in  our  midst,  associate  with  our  citizens,  receive  the 
benefits  which  this  nation  and  its  institutions  have  conferred  upon  him, 
acquire  property  here,  and  hold  public  office  (as  the  proofs  show  that 
he  did),  it  is  natural  to  presume  that  his  affection  and  feeling  of 
loyalty  and  allegiance  to  this  country  would  increase,  and  that  any 
ties  which  bound  him  to  the  country  from  which  he  came  would  cor- 
respondingly decrease. 

If,  therefore,  under  such  crciumstances,  after  35  years,  he  now 
recognizes  an  allegiance  to  the  sovereignty  of  his  origin,  superior  to 
his  allegiance  to  this  country,  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  not  only  per- 
missible to  infer  from  that  fact,  but  that  the  conclusion  is  irresistible, 
that  at  the  time  he  took  the  oath  of  renunication,  he  did  so  with  a  mental 
reservation  as  to  the  country  of  his  birth,  and  retained  towards  that 
country  an  allegiance  which  the  laws  of  this  country  required  him  to 
renounce  before  he  could  become  one  of  its  citizens.  Indeed,  for  the 
reasons  just  stated,  his  allegiance  to  the  former  must  at  that  time  have 
been  stronger  than  it  is  at  present.  Whatever  presumption  might  other- 
wise arise  in  his  favor  from  the  apparent  fact  that  during  the  interven- 
ing years  he  has  lived  as  a  good  citizen  of  this  country  is  of  no  weight, 
when  it  is  considered  that  nothing  has  happened  during  that  time  to 
call  forth  a  manifestation  of  his  reserved  allegiance,  and  that  as  soon 
as  something  did  happen — i.  e.,  the  war  between  this  country  and 
Germany — he  immediately  manifested  it. 


U.  S.  vs.  Wusterbarth,  249  Fed.  908.  See  also  Report  of  U.  S.  Attorney 
General  for  1918,  pages  39  and  746,  where  the  process  is  csdled  "Denaturalization 
Proceedings"     (sic) . 

33 


National  Civil  Liberties  Bureau 

41  Union  Square,  New  York  City 
Publications  for  Distribution. 

CIVIL  LIBERTIES 

The   Issues  Price     per  100 

Why  Freedom  Matters,  by  Norman  Angell.  3c  $2,00 

The  World  Safe  for  Democracy,  by  John  A.  Hobson 

(reprinted  from  the  Survey)  2c  $1^ 

Freedom  of  Speech  and  of  the  Press ;  extracts  from 
the  writings  of  statesmen  and  scholars  arranged  by 
John  Haynes  Holmes.  3c  $2.00 

Why  Should  There  Be  an  Amnesty?,  an  argument  for 

the  release  of  political  prisoners.  Ic  JiO 

American  Deportation  and  Exclusion  Laws,  by  Charles 
Recht,  Counsel  for  the  New  York  Bureau  of  Legal 
Advice  3c  $2.00 

Special  Cases. 

War-Time  Prosecutions  and  Mob  Violence  (an  anno- 
tated list  of  cases  down  to  date).  5c  $3.50 

Espionage  Act  Cases   (a  100-page  pamphlet  with   ex- 
tracts  from   decisions,   charges,   etc.,   in   important  $1.00;  in  lots  of 
war-time  cases).  10  or  naore,  75c. 

The   Conviction   of   Mrs.   Kate   Richards   O'Hare    and 

North  Dakota  Politics.  3c  $2.00 

The  Truth  About  the  L  W.  W.  (Facts  in  relation  to 

the  Chicago  Trial).  5c  $3.50 

or  Rags  an'  Bottles,  a  description  of  the  Sacramento 
trial  of  the  L  W.  W.,  reprinted  from  the  Nation  of 
January  25,  1919.  2c  $1.25 

Conscription  and  Liberty  of  Conscience. 

War's  Heretics,  a  plea  for  the  conscientious  objector 

(August,  1917).  3c  $2.00 

The  Rebel  Soul  and  the  World,  reprinted  from  The 

Soul  as  It  Is,  by  Prof.  Gilbert  Murray.  Ic  .50 

Political  Prisoners  in  Federal  Military  Prisons.  3c  $2.00 

A  Sympathetic  Strike  in  Prison,  how  a  prison  reform 

was  brought  about  by  conscientious  objectors.  Ic  JSO 

Your  Amish  Mennonite,  by  William  Hard;  the  story 
of  the  conscientious  objector  in  America,  reprinted 
from  the  New  Republic  of  February  1,  1919.  2c  $1.25 

Leaflets. 

The  United  States  Supreme  Court  on  War-Time  Lib- 
erties.    (Ex  Parte  Milligan). 
Mob  Violence  and  the  Law. 
The  President  on  Mob  Violence  (July  26,  1918). 
Leaflet  Descriptive  of  the  Bureau's  Work. 

Set  of  one  each  of  the  above  publications  except  Espionage  Act 
Cases,  will  be  sent  upon  receipt  of  $.30.  Any  citizen  will  be  put  on 
the  regular  mailing  list  on  application. 


Free 

Free 

Free 

Free 

Free 

Free 

Free 

Free 

I 


